Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: MatthewMatthew on May 30, 2026, 11:17:22 am
-
And submitted. Now to wait 6-8 weeks for the outcome...
-
Yes - that should do it.
With the dates this should be a slam dunk and POPLA normally realise this.
-
Any thoughts or amendments on this as the "Motorist's Comments" on the evidence for POPLA?
I am commenting on this as the Registered Keeper. The charge notice sent to me as the Registered Keeper alleges that the driver incurred a parking charge from April 17th 2026. On private land, which this is, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. As already stated, the driver is unidentified therefore this charge can not be enforced.
The charge has been issued to the Registered Keeper because the driver is unidentified. In order for the Registered Keeper to be held liable under ‘Keeper Liability’ then Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) must be adhered to (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4).
The BPA’s statement on Keeper Liability (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/Independent-Appeals-Service), of which the Operator is a member, states that “On private land, and this includes private land owned by public bodies, it is the DRIVER who is liable for any charges arising from a trespass or for not complying with the rules for parking which, in most cases, is simply a breach of contract. And it is the driver who is trespassing or breaches the contract.”
It goes on to explain the only way in which the Operator could then proceed against the Registered Keeper instead: “The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not alter this fundamental principle of DRIVER liability. What it does do, importantly, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the creditor, usually the landowner or their agent the parking operator, DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE DRIVER WAS at the time.”
However, the operator’s evidence in the Case History section shows that they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act as per this line:
04/05/2026
DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
Therefore, as already stated, there is no pathway for the Operator to transfer the liability for the charge onto the Registered Keeper.
Even if the Operator had made use of the POFA, they failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4. The notice was dated May 4th which was 17 days after the alleged parking charge was due and then there were the additional 3 days before the notice was delivered which is a total of 20 days. The Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory timeframe required under Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 (14 days) therefore Keeper Liability does not apply in this case.
In the BPA’s own words: “The creditor must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of 'keeper liability' as described.”
As already stated, I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge. The operator has not identified the driver and liability cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper due to non-compliance with POFA. I am appealing as the registered keeper so the appeal should be allowed and the charge cancelled.
-
However, I have found this on the BPAA website (of which the operator is a registreed member):
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/Independent-Appeals-Service
On private land, and this includes private land owned by public bodies, it is the DRIVER who is liable for any charges arising from a trespass or for not complying with the rules for parking which, in most cases, is simply a breach of contract. And it is the driver who is trespassing or breaches the contract.
The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not alter this fundamental principle of DRIVER liability. What it does do, importantly, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the creditor, usually the landowner or their agent the parking operator, DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE DRIVER WAS at the time.
...
The creditor must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of 'keeper liability' as described.
So basically they can only proceed against the DRIVER (who is unidentified) as it is private land. The only way they can change this to be able to proceed against the registered keeper is to use PoFA. They chose not to use PoFA (as per their case history) therefore cannot make use of the 'Keeper Liability'. And, secondly, even if they had used PoFA for Keeper Liability, they were too late to issue the charge notice anyway.
Am I understanding that correctly?
-
The driver entered into a contract by reading the signs and parking.
The driver is liable under contract law for breaching the contract (they claim).
The registered keeper can only be liable in place of the driver if PoFA 2012 is complied with, which does not require explicitly stating that it’s being used but that its conditions are all complied with, one of which is that the notice to keeper has to be delivered to arrive within 14 days of the driver’s transgression.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
The fact they’ve stated they’re not even attempting to use PoFA 2012 is just icing on the cake for you.
-
I'm not sure where to find a source for "Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge"
As I thought everything was covered by the PoFA whether they invoke it or not?
Their own case evidence shows that they are not relying on PoFA.
.....
Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge.
-
Just make it easier to read (I know POPLA assessments don’t) and include quotes from things you are relying on, treat the assessors as needing to be led because they’re a bit dim.
-
Thanks both.
So along the lines of:
As the Registered Keeper I am not liable for this charge. The Operator's own evidence (Case History: 04/05/26 - "Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper") confirms that they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) and that the letter/charge was issued to the Keeper. The driver remains unidentified and there is no PoFA route as the Operator has confirmed it was non-PoFA. Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge and it should be cancelled.
-
04/05/2026
DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
Their own case evidence shows that they are not relying on PoFA.
You could simply respond saying that the driver remains unidentified and that there is no PoFA route available and that the operators own evidence specifies that the NtK issued was non-PoFA.
Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge.
-
Anything you disagree with in the “evidence pack” you need to rebut, otherwise it could be concluded that you agree with it.
But you should lead with your primary point. Just make it short and clear. Then go on to rubbish anything else they’ve said that’s wrong.
They simply ignore points they can’t defend, which is why they haven’t mentioned PoFA.
And lead that you’re responding as the registered keeper, of course.
-
OK, so we've had a message from POPLA that provides the operators evidence pack. This is basically a copy of all communication as well as photos of the parking. They are asking for "Motorist Comments" about the evidence - but they still have not mentioned PoFA and not being on time.
Please provide your comments on the operator evidence.
You have 7 days from the operator evidence submission date - 12/06/2026. You will not have opportunity to edit or add further detail once you have submitted your comments.
Any tips on what to put? Or shall I just repeat that as the registered keeper they have not stuck to the strict schedules under PoFA? Their case history (see below) even shows they waited 16 days for 3rd May to request details from DVLA.
Case History
17/04/2026
Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
03/05/2026
Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
04/05/2026
DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)
04/05/2026
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
11/05/2026
Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response CPP
11/05/2026
Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
29/05/2026
Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Paid Parking Not Purchased (CPP)
29/05/2026
Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
I'm not sure why 29th May says "Unsuccessful POPLA" when that was when their internal appeal process was unsuccessful.
It also feels a bit naughty that they're asking for the motorist's comments even though it's the registered keeper they are dealing with. Another trick/trap to imply who was driving?
Thanks in advance
-
No, I agree. Point it out in clear wording so they can't pretend they didn't get the point being made...
Modified the last paragraph to:
As you can see above, the notice could not possibly have been served in compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, keeper liability does not arise. I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge. Furthermore, the operator has not identified the driver and, as I am appealing as the registered keeper, the appeal should be allowed.
-
It’s fine, but personally I’d go so far as to say
As a result, keeper liability does not arise. I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge.
Maybe I’m being over the top, but I think you need to say somewhere that you’re not liable.
-
Alight amendment to highlight the delay / issue:
Dear Sirs,
I received the Parking Charge Notice (Ref: xxxxxxx) for vehicle registration mark xxxx xxxx in which CarParkingPartnership (CPP) alleges that the driver has incurred a parking charge.
However, as already stated in my appeal to CPP which they rejected without comment, the operator, CPP, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice was dated May 4th which was 17 days after the alleged parking charge was due and then there were the additional 3 days before the notice was delivered which is a total of 20 days.
As a result, keeper liability does not arise.
In particular:
The Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory timeframe required under Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4; and
The Notice to Keeper fails to include the mandatory wording required under Schedule 4.
Where strict compliance with Schedule 4 is absent, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
As you can see above, the notice could not possibly have been served in compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the operator has not identified the driver, and I am appealing as the registered keeper, the appeal should be allowed.
Yours,
xxxxxxxx
-
Details.
Say that the notice was dated on day 17 (whatever day this was) and could not possibly have been served in compliance with PoFA 2012.
Assume that POPLA assesors are a bit dim. They are. Spell it out for them.
-
How does this look? It's been put together with info from a couple of sources on this forum and online:
Dear Sirs,
I received the Parking Charge Notice (Ref: xxxxxxx) for vehicle registration mark xxxx xxxx in which CarParkingPartnership (CPP) alleges that the driver has incurred a parking charge.
However, as already stated in my appeal to CPP which they rejected without comment, the operator, CPP, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, keeper liability does not arise.
In particular:
--The Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory timeframe required under Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4; and
--The Notice to Keeper fails to include the mandatory wording required under Schedule 4.
Where strict compliance with Schedule 4 is absent, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
As the operator has not identified the driver, and I am appealing as the registered keeper, the appeal should be allowed.
Yours,
xxxxxxxx
-
Yes, and the notice does not even attempt to invoke PoFA 2012 apart from hoping that you’ll be fooled into identifying the driver.
These companies only want your money, and nearly always reject perfectly valid appeals like this. If you make multiple appeal points they ignore the ones they can’t defend, and if you only make one point they will invent another reason for denying your appeal. At this point they know plenty of people give up and pay them.
You need to construct a POPLA appeal which leads them through the point that they’re not attempting to use PoFA 2012, the driver has not been identified, and that even if they did want to use PoFA 2012 they issued the notice too late, and therefore the registered keeper is not liable.
POPLA may well uphold your appeal, but even if not you have a paper trail of following the process and attempting to avoid court which will be in your favour in due course. This will never make it to court if you follow the process, so keep us updated and we can advise.
PS They don’t have to explicitly mention PoFA on their notice in order to use it, but there are a number of mandatory requirements of the legislation which they don’t include in their notice, hence why they’re not using it.
-
Hi all, looking for advice on next steps.
Parking Charge Notice received on 7th May to registered keeper's address. The parking event was on 17th April and the letter dated 4th May. So it was sent 17 days after the event and arrived 20 days after.
It makes the assumption that the owner was the driver as it says if you're not the driver to give them the name and address of the driver. Therefore as far as I understand, it is a 'Notice to Keeper' and must follow the Protection of Freedoms Act - which requires the notice to be received within 14 days. However, it does not explicitly specify that it is an NTK...
The charge was appealed using their online form stating that the charge is not valid due to not adhering to the PFA (particularly Paragraph 9 about the notice time limitations etc).Annoyingly the appeal text was not copied/pasted so I cannot share the exact message. However the driver was not named.
They have replied yesterday saying the appeal was unsuccessful because there was no evidence that the parking was paid for. Completely ignoring the fact that it was sent too late.
They say it can be appealed through POPLA - is that worth doing or is that just a bunch of their mates? It also says that if an appeal is made to POPLA then they automatically refuse to offer any discount (which seems like a bribe/coercion to NOT appeal?!)
Am I correct in my belief that it should have been sent earlier in order to be a valid 'invoice'?
Thanks in advance
(https://i.postimg.cc/0Kr9KLCM/pcn-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0Kr9KLCM)
(https://i.postimg.cc/m1hT10SP/pcn-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/m1hT10SP)